CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
14th Toulon-Verona Conference “Organizational Excellence in Services”
University of Alicante - University of Oviedo (Spain) – September 1-3, 2011
pp. 755-772 – ISBN: 978 88904327-1-2
Maintaining ISO 9001 certification
The case of Vietnam
Jacques Martin, Université du Sud Toulon-Var, France
martin@wanadoo.fr
Nguyen Minh Tuan, Business Development Solution Corp., Vietnam
tuannguyenminh@hotmail.com
Introduction:
The number of ISO 9001 certified organizations passed the million mark in 2009 (ISO, 2010).
The growth has been regular over the last twenty years, except in 2003, although the rate of
growth has tended to slow down, in spite of the sustained growth in emerging economies, as
the „certification market‟ has become mature in the Western World.
The share of the Far East, with 37.4% of the total, has almost caught up with that of Europe
with 47%. Vietnam is the country which has known the most rapid increase in the number of
certified organizations (+ 197.96% between 2005 and 2009) among Far-Eastern emerging
economies.
Many studies have been published over the last fifteen years on the reasons why organizations
seek ISO certification and how they implement it (Buttle, 1997; Lung et al., 1999, Gotzamani,
Tsiotras, 2002, Casadesus, Karapetrovic, 2005), but relatively few have focused on the issue
of the maintenance of the Quality Management System (Gotzamani, 2005, Zeng et al., 2007).
The main reasons why Vietnamese organizations are seeking ISO certification are similar to
the ones already long identified (Anderson et al., 1999).
In 1986, the 6th National Party Congress approved a comprehensive economic renewal
programme, known as “doi moi” (economic renovation), in three main directions: a shift from
state-owned enterprises to multiple ownership forms in order to develop production and
improve economic efficiency, the adoption of the market economy principles ensuring the
autonomy of individual business organizations while the State kept control of macroeconomic policies and the opening of the economy to the outside world which culminated
with membership of the WTO in 2007. In 1988, the Law on Foreign Investment (amended in
2000) opened the economy to foreign direct investments and to the integration of the
Vietnamese economy into the world economy obliging companies to meet international
standards of quality. In 2006, Resolution 144/2006/QD-TTg extended the application of ISO
9001:2000 (then ISO 9001:2008 with Resolution 118/2009/QD-TTg) to public
administrations. Today Vietnam is the third country with the biggest number of certified
organizations, after China and South Korea, in the continental Far East (ISO, 2010).
In the early 1990s, Vietnamese companies were not really aware of the „objective‟ reasons for
and potential benefits of ISO certification. They jumped on the certification bandwagon
without seriously considering the rationale for certification, just because “everybody else was
getting registered”. With the increasing economic integration and the shift from central
planning to a market economy, they realized that they needed to improve their effectiveness
and efficiency to stay in the race and adopted ISO for that purpose mostly in a B2B context,
strongly prompted, when not forced, by their international customers to get certification. In
the years 2000, with the growing internationalization of the supply chain, Vietnamese
companies, both as suppliers and customers, could only remain in the game if they were
certified. This phenomenon accelerated with membership of the WTO (3167 certified
organizations in 2006, 7333 in 2009).
However, if, for Vietnamese companies, obtaining ISO certification has been relatively easy
and quick, maintaining the Quality Management System, and above all improving it, has
proved to be a difficult achievement for the majority of them.
In this study about the maintenance and improvement of the QMS, we will first assess the
degree of maintenance and analyze the reasons why the level of maintenance is rather low
(Part 1). Then we will investigate the reasons why ISO 9001 certification has not brought
significant improvement to the performance of the organization (Part 2).
Part 1: The maintenance of the Quality Management System
The standard requires that the organization “establish, document, implement and maintain a
quality management system” (ISO 9001:2008, 4.1). Maintenance of the QMS means that,
once the QMS has been put in place, this is not the end of the job. This QMS needs to be
constantly monitored, controlled and audited so that compliance with requirements is ensured
over time.
The issue of maintenance in this study is focused on four chapters of the ISO 9001 standard:
chapter 4 dealing with the QMS, chapter 5 about management responsibility, chapter 6 about
resource management and chapter 8 about measurement, analysis and improvement.
23 companies have been surveyed of three different kinds in order to identify possible
variations: State Joint Stock companies (11), Foreign Investment companies (7), private
companies (5).
The assessment of the degree of maintenance of the QMS was assessed through interviews
with the companies‟ management according to the following method: a model framework to
analyze the issue of maintenance was designed (see fig. below) and a four-level scale (1 to 4)
was used with 1 attributed when there is no maintenance, 2 when maintenance is insufficient
or defective, 3 when maintenance is satisfactory and 4 when maintenance is fully achieved.
Enablers
Results
8. Measurement
6. Resource
Management
5. Management
Responsibility
Analysis, Improvement
Res
4. QMS
Continual improvement
1.1 The QMS:
The standard sets some general requirements for the QMS (4.1). The degree of maintenance
of requirements d (ensure the availability of resources and information necessary to support
the operation and monitoring of these processes), e (monitor, measure where applicable, and
analyze these processes), f (implement actions necessary to achieve planned results and
continual improvement of these processes) were assessed with the following results:
4.1 General requirements
d e f
4%
13%13%
1
39%
30%
22%
48%48%
39%
35%
9%
2
3
0%
4
It appears that only a minority of companies fully maintains the system according those three
requirements and that maintenance deteriorates as the system develops. 35% of companies
fully provide the resources for the operation of the processes, but only 9% totally monitor,
measure and analyze them, and none completely implements actions to achieve results and
improve. Roughly half of the companies fulfill the requirements satisfactorily – so that they
can keep their certification – but between a quarter and a half (for f) do not.
If we compare the results of the three different kinds of companies, we get the following
picture:
Foreign companies
71%
57%
57%
43%
29%
14%14%
14%
0% 0% 0%
1
0%
2
3
4
Private companies
60%60%
40%
50%
40%
20%
20%
20%
0% 0%
1
0% 0%
2
3
4
State companies
55%
45%
36%
27%
18%
27%27%
18%
27%
9%
9%
0%
1
2
3
4
The analysis of the degree of maintenance of the system for these items for each type of
company reveals a general pattern that will be found for the different requirements studied.
Globally foreign companies maintain their QMS better than private and state companies. This
can be explained by the fact that foreign companies are more integrated into the international
economy, have more experience of quality management and are managed by a mix of foreign
and local managers. Their ISO certification is also very often part of a wider TQM style
management system so that they have a better grasp of the stakes of quality. Among private
and state companies, as we shall see, the degree of maintenance of the QMS can significantly
vary depending on the item considered.
The relatively low level of maintenance with reference to these three items (4.1 d, e, f) is due
the following reason: managers lack understanding – and application – of the 8 quality
management principles (ISO 9004:2009, Annex B). Particularly they are not interested in
principles 3 to 8, especially 4 (process approach), 5 (system approach to management) and 7
(factual approach to decision making). This will be confirmed by the analysis of management
responsibility and measurement, analysis and improvement.
1.2 Management responsibility
The standard states that “the adoption of a QMS should be a strategic decision of an
organization. The design and implementation of an organization‟s QMS is influenced by a) its
organizational environment, change in that environment, and the risks associated with that
environment, b) its varying needs, c) its particular objectives, d) the products it provides, e)
the processes it employs, f) its size and organizational structure.”
The survey of managers evidences the fact they are not aware of item a, they cannot specify
the “varying needs” (b), the “particular objectives” (c), and identify the “processes it
employs” (d). The reasons are to be found in the way most companies embark on the
certification process. They hire a consultant who organizes a team from functional
departments, to establish the QMS, prepare the documentation required and the audit(s). The
management of the companies does not get involved in the process so that they do not realize
the strategic dimension and seek certification mostly because it is imposed on them.
A key element of management responsibility is the requirements about management review,
which is the way for management to monitor and control the QMS and make decisions and
act to improve it.
The assessment of the review inputs (5.6.2) items and the review outputs (5.6.3) items gave
the following results:
5.6.2 Review inputs
abcdefg
48%
39%
30% 30%
22%22%
9%
0%
26%
30%
48%48%
43%
43%
39%
35%
30%
17%
9%
26%26%
22%
17%
17%
13%
9%
0%0%
1
2
3
4
The global picture for the seven inputs is that at best a quarter of companies fully meet the
requirements, and about half do not meet them.
There are marked differences when examining the different categories of companies.
Foreign companies
57%57%57%57%57%
43%43% 43%43%43%43%
29%29%
14%
0%0%0%0%0%
1
0%
29% 29%
14%
14%
0%0%0%0%
2
3
4
Private companies
80%80%80%80%
60%
60%
40%40%
20%
0%
20%20%20%
20%20%
20%
0%0%
20%20%
0%0%0%
1
2
0%
0%0%0%0%
3
4
State companies
64%
55%
46%
36%
36%
27%
46%
37%37%
36% 36%
27%
27%27%
27%
18%
18%
9%
0%
28%
9%
18%
9%9%9%9%
0%0%
1
2
3
4
Foreign companies fare much better than private and state companies. This confirms what has
already been noted; a better knowledge and practice of quality management in foreign
companies. State companies do somewhat better than private companies as they are larger and
benefit by more resources.
The picture for review outputs is bleaker (a: improvement of effectiveness of QMS, b:
improvement of product, c: resource needs).
5.6.3 Review outputs
abc
57%
52%
43%
35%
0%
4%
39%
35%
13%
9%
4%
1
2
3
9%
4
A very low proportion of companies produce valuable outputs. When we look at the inputsoutputs ratio, we witness a low leverage of the resources. It is as if things were started in a
relatively correct manner and then deteriorate. And this can be noticed for several items (cf.
measurement, analysis, improvement below).
The results for each type of company also show marked differences.
Foreign companies
57% 57%
43%
43% 43%
29%
29%
0% 0% 0%
1
0% 0%
2
3
4
Private companies
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0%
1
2
3
4
State companies
55%
55%
36%
36%
27% 27%
18%
18%
9%
9% 9%
0%
1
2
3
4
Here, even foreign companies do not have convincing results. State companies do slightly
better. It is not easy to explain these findings. Foreign companies‟ managers argue that they
are not interested in b and c because their products meet customer requirements, or they
believe so, and their resources are maintained. Private companies in fact rarely organize a real
meeting for management review. And state companies leave management review almost
entirely to the Quality Management Representative who collects the information, writes and
sends a report to the management.
1.3 Resource management
The standard requires that “the organization shall determine and provide the resources needed
(…) to maintain the QMS” (6.1). Among these resources, the standard requires that
“personnel performing work affecting product conformity shall be competent on the basis of
appropriate education, training, skills and experience” (6.2.1). Those two items were
investigated in the survey and gave the following results:
6. Resource management
6.1 - 6.2
41%
36%
35%
30%
26%
20%
9%
3%
1
2
3
4
The global picture is that companies are meeting serious problems with resources. Whatever
their status the situation is similar.
Foreign companies
62%
57%
33%
14%
14%
14%
5%
0%
1
2
3
4
Private companies
67%
60%
20%
20%
20%
13%
0%
1
2
3
0%
4
State companies
36%
33%
33%
27%
27%
27%
9%
6%
1
2
3
4
The poor maintenance of the quality system as regards resources is due to factors impacting
any organization in the country (we would find the same results, even worse, in public
administrations) related to the macro economic and social environment.
First there are inadequate recruitment procedures. Skills and competencies do not match
requirements. Companies are not fully responsible for that as there are discrepancies between
scholarly training, still marked by the pre-market context, and the competencies required in an
open and competitive environment.
Second there is a lack of in-house training. Companies are reluctant to organize training as
their fear their personnel will leave once trained to seek a better paid job. All companies face
a huge problem of personnel turnover which creates a vicious circle.
Third there is a lack of trust between top management and middle management also
contributing to a big turnover of middle management. There is also a lack of communication
between management and operators. This is mainly due to the rigid pyramidal and
hierarchical structure of the organization inherited from the pre-market state-owned
enterprises. Sometimes operators do not even know who they are managed by and middle
management has never seen the “boss”.
Fourth quality management representatives are not quite aware of their role in maintaining the
QMS. They, most of the time, originate from operations, and can be quite good at controlling
them, but they do not have a managerial vision.
The overall picture is that the establishment of a QMS fulfilling the basic formal requirements
of the standard to get certification is rather easily and quickly accomplished by organizations.
But once the certification is obtained the maintenance of the QMS is deficient for two main
reasons; the lack of commitment of the management and the insufficient level of competence
of the human resource making the improvement erratic (Conti 2010)
The low or at least average degree of maintenance of the QMS leads to an absence of real
improvement in effectiveness and efficiency.
Part 2: The improvement of the performance
In order to evaluate and analyze the improvement effects of the organization, the survey has
been focused on a number of requirements in Chapter 8 of the standard, which are the basis
for continual improvement.
The standard requires that “the organization shall monitor information relating to customer
perception (8.2.1. customer satisfaction)” and that “ the organization shall conduct internal
audits (8.2.2)”. These two items of monitoring and measurement gave the following results:
8. Monitoring & measurement
8.2.1 - 8.2.2
43%
35%
30%
26%
26%
17%
13%
9%
1
2
3
4
Here again, it appears that only a little more than half of the organizations surveyed conduct
their monitoring and measurement in a satisfactory way.
The results for the different types of organizations are the following:
Foreign companies
71%
43%
29%
0%
0%
29%
29%
0%
1
2
3
4
Private companies
60%
60%
40%
20%
20%
0%
0%
1
2
3
0%
4
State companies
55%
36%
27%
27%
18%
18%
9%
1
2
3
9%
4
We notice marked differences between the three kinds of organizations. Foreign companies
satisfactorily maintain their QMS through monitoring and measurement, whereas private
ones, and even more state organizations, do not show great interest for monitoring and
measurement. According to the “management by facts” principle, not only should
organizations monitor and measure but also analyze the data that they collect in order to make
decisions for improvement. The picture of “analysis of data” (8.4) is in-keeping with that of
monitoring and measurement.
8.4 Analysis of data
35% 35% 35%
30% 30%
30% 30%
26%
22%
17%
4% 4%
1
2
3
4
It is, globally, even gloomier. The data collected by the companies are not used for a good
number of them. Only 39% of companies (green bars) analyze “data generated as a result of
monitoring and measurement”. And the contrast between foreign companies and private and
state ones is even more striking.
Foreign companies
71% 71%
43%
43%
14% 14% 14%
14% 14%
0% 0% 0%
1
2
3
4
Private companies
60%
40%
20%
40% 40%
40%
20%
20% 20%
0% 0% 0%
1
2
3
4
State companies
55%
45%
36%
36%
27%
27%
27%
18% 18%
9%
0% 0%
1
2
3
4
The management is primarily interested in economic results such as the turnover and the
margin, but not in how processes perform. The data collected concern the outcomes of the
processes. Data on the processes are not or rarely collected. There are no key performance
indicators to measure processes. There is no analysis of non-conformities, hence the
companies only correct non-conformities but do not implement corrective actions, not to
speak of preventive actions, as can be seen below. There is also no systematic collection and
analysis of customers‟ feedback information. This shows that these companies have not (yet)
integrated a quality culture into their management and still live on their old habits.
Finally the standard requires that “the organization shall continually improve the effectiveness
of the Quality Management System (8.5.1), notably through corrective and preventive actions
(8.5.2 and 8.5.3)
8.5 Improvement
5.1 - 5.2 - 5.3
54%
57%
48%
35%
30%
26%
14%
9%
7%
1
2
13%
4%
3
4%
4
Only 39% of the companies surveyed show some sort of improvement. The picture is bleak
for the three types of companies surveyed.
Foreign companies
57%
57%
43%
36%
36%
29%
0% 0% 0%
1
29%
4%
0%
2
3
4
Private companies
100%
90% 90%
10%
10%
0% 0%
0%
1
2
0%
3
0% 0% 0%
4
State companies
59%
50%
41%
36%
27%
27%
27%
9% 9%
4%
1
0%
2
3
0%
4
Like for all the other aspects foreign companies fare better than the others as they are more
internationally integrated, but their achievement is far from being remarkable. The results of
private companies are appalling. Corrective actions are hardly existent and preventive actions
are non-existent.
The evidencing of the causes of a low degree of maintenance and lack of improvement can be
summarized in the following fishbone diagram. The majority of root causes for the poor
performance of the Quality Management System is to be found in the management.
Clause 1
Clause 4
Processes not analyzed
When designing QMS
Top Management
Not aware of
Strategic dimension
Managers not aware
of 8 principles
Managers not aware of
general requirements a to f
Low degree of
maintenance of
QMS
No use of
Statistical tools
No criteria
for HRM
Management
only focus on
turnover
Clause 8
Clause 6
Clause 5
The management‟s awareness of the potential benefits of a QMS should be raised. When
asked, the only benefit they mention is increased orders by customers. There is no awareness
of continual improvement. Management responsibility should be enhanced. After certification
is obtained, the management is no longer interested in the QMS and leaves it to the quality
representative, who is not often up to the job, or to a consultant. And as the personnel are not
sufficiently trained in quality tools and there is a lack of monitoring and control, no real
improvement can take place.
Conclusion:
The efforts deployed by the organizations surveyed to obtain certification and get positive
results are short-lived. They are unable to maintain their QMS in a satisfactory way mainly
for lack of a strategic vision and commitment from the management leading to no or very
limited improvement of the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. The findings are not
unique and have also been observed in other environments (Zeng et al., 2007, Fotopoulos et
al., 2008) stressing the fact that it is not getting ISO certification which is difficult but
implementing a system for continual improvement, that is with a total quality outlook.
The number of companies surveyed being relatively limited, it is difficult to generalize, but
we are most probably not far from the truth when we see that roughly 50% of companies, with
some marked differences between different types of organizations due to different constraints
and histories, manage to maintain their quality management system properly.
References
Anderson, S.W, Daly, J.D., Johnson, M.F. (1999), “Why firms seek ISO 9000 certification:
regulatory compliance or competitive advantage?”, Production and Operations Management.
Buttle, F. (1997), “ISO 9000: marketing motivations and benefits”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliable Management.
Casadesus, M. and Karapetrovic, S. (2005), “The erosion of ISO 9000 benefits: a temporal
study”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
Casadesus, M. and Karapetrovic, S. (2005), “Has ISO 9000 lost some of its lustre? A
longitudinal impact study”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
Conti T. (2010), “There is no panacea for all diseases: true for humans, true for
organizations”, Toulon-Verona-ICQSS Conference, Coimbra, Portugal
Fotopoulos, C., Psomas, E., Vouzas, F. (2008), ISO 9001:2000 implementation in the Greek
food sector, TQM Journal.
Gotzamani, K.D. (2005), “The implications of the new ISO 9000:2000 standards for certified
organizations. A review of anticipated benefits and implementation pitfalls”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Gotzamani, K.D., Tsiotras, G. (2002), “The true motives behind ISO 9000 certification, their
effect on the overall certification benefits and long-term contribution towards TQM”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
Gotzamani, K.D., Theodorakioglou, Y.D. and Tsiotras, G.D. (2006), “A longitudinal study of
the ISO 9000 (1994) series‟ contribution towards TQM in Greek industry”, The TQM
Magazine.
ISO (2010), The ISO survey of certifications
ISO 9001:2008 standard
Leung, H.K.N, Chan, K.C.C, Lee, T.Y. (1999), “Costs and benefits of ISO 9000 series: a
practical study”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management.
Zeng S.X., Tian P., Tam C.M. (2007), “Overcoming barriers to sustainable implementation of
the ISO 9001 system”, Managerial Auditing Journal.
Vouzas, F.K., Gotzamani, K.D. (2005), “Best practices of selected Greek organizations on
their road to business excellence: the contribution of the new ISO 9000:2000 series of
standards”, The TQM Magazine.